'Tell Tamil Nadu Guv When SC Stays Conviction, It Is Stayed': CJI Raps RN Ravi For Refusing To Swear In Minister

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi while hearing the state government's plea against its his refusal to swear in Thiru K. Ponmudi as Minister

'Tell Tamil Nadu Guv When SC Stays Conviction, It Is Stayed': SC Expresses Concern Over RN Ravi's Conduct

Source : Getty

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi while hearing the state government's plea against his refusal to swear in Thiru K. Ponmudi as a Minister in the state cabinet even after the Supreme Court stayed his conviction in connection with a disproportionate assets case.

 

The CJI DY Chandrachud while hearing the case took strong exception to the Governor's conduct and said, "we are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor in this case. We did not want to say it out loud in court but you are now constraining us to say that aloud. This is not the way. He is defying the Supreme Court of India. When a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court stays a conviction, the Governor has no business to tell us that this does not wipe off the conviction and it is non-existent."

 

 

The CJI further said that those who have advised the Tamil Nadu Governor have not advised him correctly. Now the Governor better be informed that when the Supreme Court stays a conviction, then law has to follow its course.

 

"Those who have advised the Tamil Nadu Governor have not advised him properly. Now the Governor has to be informed that when the Supreme Court of India stays a conviction, it stays a conviction,"

 

The top court today, gave a day to the Governor to file his response and warned of passing an order.

 

"If we do not hear from your person tomorrow, we will pass an order directing the governor to act according to the Constitution. we will pass an order," the bench told the Attorney General appearing for the Governor RN Ravi Today. The case will be taken up again on Friday.

 

The Tamil Nadu government on Monday moved the Supreme Court against Governor RN Ravi's decision refusing to appoint K Ponmudy as minister in the state cabinet. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi mentioned the case before the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud seeking urgent hearing.

 

Singhvi told the court that this is the same errant Governor, who was earlier dealt with by this Court. "Court stays his (Ponmudi's) conviction. The Chief Minister recommends his appointment. Then the Governor writes a letter saying it is constitutionally immoral for him to appoint..."

 

On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi wrote a letter to Chief Minister MK Stalin saying that since Ponmudi was held guilty by the Madras High Court for a serious offence amounting to moral turpitude, relating to corruption, his re-induction in the Council of Ministers while he remains tainted of corruption would be against Constitutional morality.

 

The Governor said that Ponmudi's conviction has only been suspended and not set aside by the Supreme Court.

 

On March 11, a bench of  Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan passed an order saying that a case was made out for stay of conviction and sentence, as "in view of operation of Section 8(3) of the 1951 Act, irreversible situation will be created if conviction is not suspended."

 

Earlier, a Special Court had acquitted Ponmudi and his wife in the Disproportionate Assets case. The Madras High Court had set aside his acquittal in the Disproportionate Assets case, after which he along with his wife was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years along with fine. Ponmudi had moved the top court against this high court order. 

 

The top court while staying K Ponmudi's conviction and sentence, observed that in view of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, an MLA, who was sentenced to over 2 years of imprisonment, would have been disqualified as a result of conviction, yet prima facie the Madras High Court did not consider the main question as to whether the Special Court's view (of acquittal) was a possibility.